Is my opinion more important than the space? Are ‘my’ ideas more important than the space? Are the temporary sensations I am experiencing more important than the space? Is my status of whom I think I am, more important than the space?

Is the space, a different space for the ‘other’ person I am seeing? Is the space ever not there? Does the space discriminate on what is in the space? Does the space ever go away for even a second?

The space that is housing every thought, idea, sensation; is ‘it’ the same space as the space outside ourselves?

Why is it that we do not see the space? Can it be seen? If the space unifies all things, feelings, ideas, sensations, what would we call this space? Would ‘naming’ capture it’s essence? Or would naming ‘it’ depreciate it’s ‘everythingness’ and make it into another concept?

If the space that is inside ourselves, is the same space that is outside ourselves, what does that mean? Why do we maintain the ‘idea’ that there is a difference? Is this ‘idea’ of limitation more of a belief than our true experience? Why does belief overrule what we experience when the evidence points in a unified direction not justifying the belief?

Are our beliefs, a proxy for our egos where the viability of our ego must be maintained at the expense of verifiable reality? Is the cognitive disconnect ever scrutinized for a reality check? Other than a cursory, ‘yes’, and a resumption to illusory behavior -do we ’See’ ‘that’?

Am I more important than the space I am within? Or is the question moot? Is the duality of the question the problem?

The appearance of form does not negate the a priori of ‘One’ space.If belief is the suspension bridge holding up the illusion of self as separate, then ’Seeing’ the background of space, is acknowledging the metaphor of a movie screen where the movie is occurring. The movie screen ‘self’ is actually playing on the permanent screen and is not separate from the screen. The character in the movie is part of the screen and just doesn’t know it nor can know it, when it is limited to the hard script of the movie.

Nothing is necessarily negated but rather clarified in permanence and prior-ness.GP2C4732.jpg

“It is our Self, luminous, open, empty Awareness, which gives experience its unmistakable reality. What we truly know and love in all experience is the reality of Awareness. It is that alone for which the apparently separate self longs.” -Rupert Spira

The scared mind always is concerned about it’s temporariness due to it’s nature of temporariness. It (mind) has no powers to ‘be’ except for it’s ability to perform illusions that appear real.

The movie is a real movie when the movie is playing and we are watching. However, if we do not focus on the movie, when it is playing, we can better know the screen as ourselves. The reality is in the screen, whether the movie is playing or not. Getting caught up in the movie misplaces identity in the fictional character called “me”. Experiencing the permanence of the screen, means we are no longer bound by the movie character or script.We rather focus and have a genuine interest in the ‘permanent screen’, that is, the progenitor and director of the movie.

Consequently, our focus now sees the ephemeral represented as a temporary role. The permanent emptiness of space on the screen becomes our unchanging identity due to no longer believing in any particular role we end up playing. We lose the belief that we are the character in this real movie. Sure, the script is compelling and full of pathos, as it should be. However, we now clearly understand that the nature of the role is fictional. Our actions, all our actions, are directed by our true identity, especially when playing our specific part. Our knowledge of whom we Are is never suspended as it is not in the ’time-based’ movie.

So, when the question we ask ourselves (when we see the we are caught in the belief that the movie is real) is, is my temporary character just a story line in a metaphor i.e. a movie and/or life itself? Our direct experience would evoke a ‘yes’ response.Yes it is just a real movie character with truly fictional qualities. And then the 2nd part of the question about ‘importance’ becomes moot. The Reality is ‘Seen’ as the screen and the movie, with identity only in the non-thingness of the screen.

Abandoning the need for self to be some ‘thing’ is major, as self is merely wanting to restructure it’s falseness to another thing while maintaining the falseness. The falseness is not real so it really cannot be sustained without constant attention and affirmation in the construct called time.

The Eternity of whom we really Are, is not in time, as we never ever stop Being. Even prior to this realization, ‘We’ were always ‘Being’ despite the lack of true acknowledgement. Time is for the character in the movie. Importance from the point of view of Oneness is not recognizable. Importance is an idea that has fictional reality.

Belief is for the movies as it has no foundation.The space on the screen allows any number of movies to be played incessantly. The space of the screen never is affected by the temporary dancing images. The movie and the screen are always in the same space with no separation.

IMG_1243.jpgThis Iz Daddy’O

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s